Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 20, 2012 3:30pm-4:00pm PST

3:30 pm
seeing none, we will close public comments. cohen you like to come back and perhaps maybe share any response to the comments that were made now about understanding about the land and how that's being used helping come up with option one? >> sure, thanks. i think these are important question and we've been working through the pc you saw there and that vacated piece of property. the vacation of that northeastern portion of quint is more recent addition to the connector road project. it actually was added more recently. initially the option one, berm would have included the vacation of the piece of quint street,
3:31 pm
that is directly at the tracks in order to do the berm but that additional piece up on the northeast portion was added. the reason that was added is actually twofold, one, to facilitate potential staging of both projects concurrently. the berm or bridge replacement project and the connector road project. vacation of that area allows potentially more staging for both of those projects to happen together and minimize that gap in construction time closure. it also does facilitate the poc's master planning process. as i mentioned earlier, working with the poc as one partner in looking at what other funding options are available to reduce that prop k request or how the pc can be involved in this
3:32 pm
process moving forward. that is something we will plan to work with pc on and come back in the spring with a more detailed plan of exactly what that could look like. >> i know that we had spoke about this not just a couple weeks ago, not even earlier, maybe about a month in a half ago. this was mentioned about the use of pc land and this corner in the northeast section of the pc land. to me it seems like a flexible use of land that helps enable different projects moving forward. what is that little corner, that triangle what is that used for? >> they lease it to an asphalt plant but they own the underlying piece of property. my understanding is that the short term lease and so, that
3:33 pm
may not be a long term use. >> thank you. >> good morning mr. chairman and commissioners. i think that there is no question that the poc has been a partner and they will continue to be at the table as this project goes through further stages of analysis and we see what the cost and further technical challenges are to implementing it. as with any other where there's land use that's adjacent facilities there's an opportunity to capture some of that value, they are at the table as a potential funding partner. we are fully aware of that. we are aware they won. the time is fairly early in the
3:34 pm
process. i'll just note that we are working with them and that everything is on the table. >> also one of the findings from the community outreach, ways to use different sources -- >> right, that has to be the case with transportation project we work on in the city. transportation money is limited and we have to look at the utility of the project in relation to the land use that's adjacent and see if there's a way to capture it it. the other side of it is, this potential oakdale cal train station is too important. it's too good of an opportunity separated transit access for folks around that station to downtown and to the airport in places south of valencia and somehow include it because of the bridge work. that's the origin of this whole
3:35 pm
effort. it's not my favorite sport to close city streets. this is a way that you can have your cake and eat it. we can have the connector road, but we can have this potentially fabulous connection from that part of town into downtown where employment is going at the same time. in the process perhaps give the poc a more useable piece of land where currently we have industrial uses that are -- i would surmise based on highest use of that space and a street that's definitely under utilized. >> great, thank you. commissioner cohen? >> thank you very much. i like to take a chance and opportunity to thank t.a. staff and cal train staff for the work they've done for the last year in a half to address many of the concerns you heard raised here.
3:36 pm
alternatives for our consideration that replaces this bridge, which by the way once upon a time was very beautiful. what we want to do also much like -- also preserve the right and integrity to continue to have a future oakdale cal train station. that's very important. not just the southeast part of the city but the entire part of san francisco. we still have significant amount of information that we're going to learn from the design from both and berm and connector road as they continue to develop. certainly made it very clear to the community and to the department that my priorities. dallas three of them. there's first to see the bridge
3:37 pm
replaced. certainly very aware of the historic treatment that the southeast particularly has received from san francisco and in the last two years have been trying to write that social justice inequality. continuing to work on these goals to provide implementation of this project of this process as this project progresses and also i want to underscore that the poc is a huge stakeholder and is a strong potential funding partner in this. i assure members of community that no one is going to be taking anything for the team. thank you. >> thank you commissioner cohen. we have a motion to move the item forward.
3:38 pm
supervisor cohen, seconded by commissioner farrell. we'll take that without objection. let's go on to item six. >> adoption of the 2012 strategic plan with conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning chair and committee members. chad transportation planner with the authority. over the past few months, we've wrote a number of items to the committee. we presented the draft for the recommendations for the first five years of the prop a program. for short background, 30 year expenditure plan established categories you see on the screen here. along with percentage of
3:39 pm
revenues to be allocated to each the three categories over the life of the expenditure plan. what goes into the strategy plan? for a little bit of context, the prop double a strategic plan will be shorter and complex. mainly because of the smaller dollar amount. the simpler expenditure plan and the fact that prop double a does not utilize financing. also the fire year prioritization program, each the program categories are part of the strategic plan as opposed to prop k where they are stand alone documents. in july the board approved policies as in attachments three and four. for revenues prop double a revenues are projected just over $4.8 million per year. that's flat rate or $144 million over 30 years. the focus of today's agenda is made up of programming in the five y ps i ps.
3:40 pm
we had about 26 million available for projects in the first five years of programming an we received over $55 million in projects. we had to do a lot of cutting to develop a recommendation that fits been development of funds. prop double a is a relatively small program in terms of dollars and pay as you go program. at this point, we had over a year in a half of revenue collection. we're at the point where we have enough revenues collected and we can start allocating. attachment one of this memo shows the draft recommended hasn't changed since september. attachment two shows the revised
3:41 pm
programming recommendation since september. focus on attachment two here on out. for people watching and the audience, that same attachment is shown on pages 59 and 60 of the agenda. one side of the 11 by 17 page 59 and 60 shows total funds requested each the project by phase. table two, that shows cash flow. we use that information to make sure we stay true to pay as you go program. a few general comments on the programming, we recommended a signing of allocation target described in the expenditure plan each the categories. in other words -- that's because we had more request in each the three categories and funds available for any of the three. on an annual basis, we are able to flexibly assign cash flow across the three categories. in that instance, allow us to front load programming of street
3:42 pm
resurfacing project. our recommendation is consistent with voter mandate to use prop double a to fund projects. our application to prioritization criteria put emphasis on projects design and construction in the first two years. that means this current fiscal year and '13 and '14. in september, i described a number of recommended and not recommended projects within each the categories. i won't go into every project today, i do want to spend time on the retainment and the programming we've made. this has been the changes in refinements have been based on communication. there are also three special conditions included in today's action. these are all on the slide presented now. dpw initial application for this project included repaving work on 9th street and brian to 8th to 11th.
3:43 pm
dpw staff informed us the brian street segment will need two repairs. the schedule for this work is to be determined and dpw staff anticipate funding this segment with future gas tax, prop k or other available funding. we've kept the full amount program at dpw request. next is dolores. the draft we did bring you to in december. the project, dpw submitted dolores street pavement that project includes pedestrian enhancement. scheduled for construction in the fiscal year '14 and '15. there wasn't enough -- after
3:44 pm
funding higher ranking project, there weren't enough prop double a funds to fund all the eligible projects. the condition associate with this action, the condition which has been agreed to by dpw to fund the long street project unless dpw secures other funds. district six, safety projects. we recommended funding for two pet safety projects located in district six.
3:45 pm
one is mid clock crossing. it was identified in the neighborhood transportation plan. several of the treatments included in the mcallister street project, recommended in the 2007 and site on transportation plan. to know the mcallister project includes sidewalk expansion leverage a project funded by u.c. hastings. our initial recommendations includes one and two way project. our previous staff recommendations not fund that project was primarily because of the $6.5 million cost of the project compared to $6.6 million available for the entire category over the first five
3:46 pm
years. in addition to that, there's also -- at that point there was a lot of uncertainty around the development negotiation. commissioner kim is interested in finding ways to move all three of these projects forward and reach out to district six stakeholders. that leads into condition where the authority will commit to strategic plan based on further community input and discussion to be led by the district office. >> if i could make a couple comments. i do appreciate the t.a. working so closely with our office as we talk about all the different p riorities. because the conversion of ellis two way is such a large amount. we're also interested what pieces it might cost. one of the requests that had been recommended by some of our community leaders is whether we
3:47 pm
could do critical intersections on eddie and ellis to help increase pedestrian safety. understanding that that this is a large project, which is quite expensive and couldn't be completely filled by prop double a alone. i think we want to make sure that we have -- we want to understand mcallister are a priority for us as well but have a larger broader discussion. we do want to thank staff for your work on this. >> on the next slide, start with winston. in september and october, we worked with staff from sfmta and dpw to determine the appropriate project needs and delivery approach for sf states. the outcome of that sf state will continue to be the lead on the project.
3:48 pm
the modified scope includes newly expanded sidewalks. portions on the north side and sidewalk expansion on the south side of winston and buckingham. the project includes correcting road alignment of winston to improve existing crosswalk. the change in scope do not affect the overall project. sfmta and dpw staff indicated their project of the over all project. we will don't work with sfmta to identify additional funding for polk including but not limited
3:49 pm
to prop k funds. last one i'm going to talk about is the rapid network place holder. the sfmta submitted three travel time reduction capital projects requesting $5.8 million in prop double a funds. all three of those projects are currently cleared through the transit effectiveness program. we understand there are some uncertainty over the schedule and the funding plans compared to the other projects submitted in this project. in september we proposed a funding place holder for rapid network project in fiscal years '14, '15. this allows us to fund four other projects that are ready to be delivered in the first two years of the program. at the september meeting, we did hear support from commissioner cohen and members of the public. since then we have met with sfmta staff.
3:50 pm
we've offered support to the sfmta for potential prop k allocation to further project development of these projects. there are $7.3 million in prop k funds and tap funding strategy development will be focus of prop k strategic plan. we plan to start in early 2013. we also continue to work with the sfmta to identify additional funding for pet projects since since -- including the none eir improvement. the condition we included the action, priority for receiving any additional prop double a funds in the transit reliability category in the current five year period and also first priority for programming in the transit category in the next prop double a strategic update. you can find more information on all of these projects in the enclosure that i mentioned.
3:51 pm
final i want to note we made several small revisions to the policies and prioritization criteria. these are attachments three and four. the more substantial change consist clarifying consequences that requires project implementation to occur within 12 months. we added language stating a project doesn't start within 12 months but the sponsor can request a new project deadline. the sponsor request the authority board extension. finally i'll note that funds from project do not allocate in the year in which they are programmed. with that, i'm happy to take any questions. i know we have a number of project sponsors here. >> thank you for your presentation. if there are no comments or questions from the panel, we'll go on to public comment.
3:52 pm
anyone from the public like to comment please come forward. seeing none, we will close public comment. okay, thank you for your presentation. colleague can we have a motion to approve this item with conditions? motion from commissioner kim and seconded by commissioner farrell. next item. >> i'm back, chad transportation authority item number seven. really quick powerpoint. shorter than quick. >> no, i mean speak slowly.
3:53 pm
>> i need you to slow it down. >> i item begins on page 71 of the memo. the allocation request, begin on page 78 if you're interested. three projects, 9th street i mentioned include six blocks of paving work and it includes construction of approximately 45 pell grants. epw is paving work will be coordinated with pedestrian enhancement at the intersection of 9th street and folsom. the enhancements includes the construction of pedestrian in the installations. the pedestrian improvement will be funded with prop b funds. construction of the over all project begin in june 2013 and
3:54 pm
is anticipated to be open for use by february of 2014. next is 28th avenue pavement. this includes ten blocks of paving work and construction of approximately 55 curb ramps. construction is scheduled to begin in april 2013 and anticipated to be open by december 2013. last project, this project will allow the sfmta to install pedestrian signal at ten locates around the city. in addition to the installation of new projects.
3:55 pm
i will be happy to take questions. >> just over all, if you can explain how the signals fits with the overall city strategy. >> good morning commissioners. you may recall couple months back we explained our strategy and our prioritization for all the pedestrian contact signals intersections in city that's lack pcs. these are the ten locations that we've had in our list for a while. they rank pretty highly compared to the location in the city. we've been still looking forward to having the double a funds available so that we can go forward from design and constructing these signals. >> then these are approved -- what's the next phase in terms
3:56 pm
of looking at greater coverage of signals in san francisco? >> you're talking about the rest of the location, that is something in your cip. we continue to work and chip away at those locations. double a is one funding source and prop a is another. >> certainly this southern and southeast part of san francisco getting coverage not quite as strong here and district 11 isn't on here at all. >> i understand. these are ten of the locations citywide. this is only from the prop a funded. we are looking into putting in other signals. these are ones really in bad shape and we can't add pedestrian signals to the crumbling infrastructure. there are other locations throughout the district and citywide that we are adding pedestrian signals.
3:57 pm
this is just the ones we happen to rank very highly citywide. >> thank you. okay, commissioner cohen? why don't we go to public comment. any member of the public like to comment. please come forward. seeing none, we will close public comment. we have a motion to move forward. motion from commissioner and we'll take that out objection. next item. >> recommended approval of initial one bay area grant project allocation of $22,000 prop k funds. this is an action item. >> good morning commissioners transportation planner with the authority. going to walk you through transportation on the one bay
3:58 pm
area grant program. this is recommendation for initial program of project. just one allocation for further project development. we'll get into what that mean further down the presentation. just a quick overview, we'll do a brief overview what the regional obag program was and how we got here today and where we are in our schedule. the project screening prioritization process and the project development stage and some next steps. i'll be using the enclosure that you received. kind of my main guidance and walking you through. as you remember, we've been in front of the committee at least two or three times discussing the obag program. i won't go in too much step in terms of the regional side of things. this is the region -- supports
3:59 pm
the california climate law sb375 and one very specific way that does that is mtc requested that 70% of all obag funds will be spent in the project development area. eligible programs pretty wide. including transportation for committees, local streets and road, paving projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects. a formula took into consideration, population, future housing project, gave san francisco $38 million that extends from '13 to '15 and '16. we have about $35 million of that amount for projects. that's the amount we're discussing here today. >> just real quick question on the scope of the program, this is 2013 to 205 and